Chapter 6: THE POWER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE & CONSTITUTION

The United States Constitution is a remarkable document. Incredibly enlightened, it represents ideals which even the Founding Fathers didn’t fully embrace - at the time. For example, women and slaves were not afforded many of the rights offered in the Constitution, but the Constitution, as a living document, has been amended and interpreted to grant rights not originally spelled out.

Most are familiar with how the Constitution imbued citizens with certain inalienable rights and provided the framework for a well functioning democratic institution. It created a balance of power among  the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.   The Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual, including freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the people or the States. The Constitution specifies how peaceful transfers of power are to occur and even how to amend itself. It is not a static document but one that can be altered and changed.

There is a reason the United States has become the global leader in science, art, culture, finance, and more. Much of it is due to the principles enshrined in this remarkable document. To  understand this, we’ll use an example.

Let’s consider two people with two different bosses. 

One works with a boss who supports the employee’s ideas and allows the employee to receive the credit for the work they do. The boss has  created a secure environment where the employee doesn’t fear for his job if he says the wrong thing or speaks out if he feels the company is headed in the wrong direction. The boss makes sure the employee receives a good bonus for his work if he does well and is compensated for his contribution.

The second boss is the opposite. He steals his employee’s ideas and presents them as his own. He punishes the employee if he says something he doesn’t like or that contradicts what he believes. He fails to reward the employee no matter how much he or she contributes to the company’s success. 

Which employee will do better? Which employee will be willing to take chances and put in the extra work to develop an idea, improve the company’s operation, and create more knowledge? Which company would you prefer to work for?

Most would pick boss number one. There are companies with insanely driven founders who manage to operate within a tyrannical environment, but research shows that over time, only a company that respects and rewards its employees can expect to maximize its success. 

The same holds true for a system of governance. History has shown that those systems that respect individual rights, that provide a means for individuals to reap the rewards of the work they do and the success they take, that allow individuals to freely express themselves without fear or punishment, are the ones that flourish. The United States Constitution is a remarkable document because it creates an environment in which individuals feel the security and incentives necessary to fuel knowledge creation. Someone cannot focus on creating knowledge if they are worried about the government appropriating their idea, or locking them up, or harming them or their family.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs demonstrates this. Before self-actualization can happen, a host of basic physical and psychological needs must be met. It is hard to plunge into the depths of physics if one is worried about where the next meal is going to come from or if someone is worried that they or a member of their family will be carted off to jail. 

In North Korea, the basic needs of a very small percent of the population are satisfied. The elites are able to make some progress, focused on North Korea’s military and nuclear program. But that progress and its scope is limited. Outside of this group, there is very little self-actualization and knowledge creation happening. It’s doubtful that even among the elite safety needs are being met as the North’s mercurial leadership will often turn on supporters, changing someone from hero to villain in a blink of an eye.

In the United States, some would argue that the government doesn’t disrupt self-actualization, it is the online mob, or the press, or social media. People are afraid they will be canceled if they say the wrong thing or run afoul of societal rules. This may be true but it is separate from the system of government laid out by the Constitution. The Constitution ensures that government does not become the obstacle to self-actualization and Ascendance. 

But the Constitution is only a framework. For it to truly charge knowledge creation, it must be implemented. Its protections and benefits must be extended to all citizens regardless of race, religion, and gender. The blueprint is there, the country has gained vast riches in following the recipe, but there is still more work to do to extend its benefits to every individual in the country.

Systemic Impact

While the Constitution enshrines rights which can unleash personal knowledge creation, there is a deeper brilliance to the document. The Constitution lays out a system that, like a scientist using the scientific method, allows citizens to experiment  with various methods of government and move forward with those that are successful and uncover a deeper truth. How does it do this? Via campaigns, elections and changes in government.

Consider each election an experiment. Every two years for the House of Representatives, four years for the Presidency, and six years for the Senate, the people decide to conduct their experiments. They listen to the hypothesis of various people running for office. Candidates explain their positions and what they are going to do to make life better for the citizens of the country. In the early days of the Republic, much of the experimentation focused on an agrarian society championed by Thomas Jefferson and a more industrial country championed by Alexander Hamilton. In the middle of the 19th century, this experimentation focused on the issue of slavery. In choosing Lincoln, the nation decided to experiment with ending slavery as an economic institution. The Civil War was an attempt to reverse a process that was already underway and sanctioned by the system. It was also the greatest example of the decision-making process jumping the guardrails of the Constitution. Our system was almost destroyed. 

After the Great Depression, the people experimented with robust government intervention in the economy via FDRs New Deal and then with the United States' entrance into World War II. And with Ronald Reagan, we experimented with dismantling some of this big government and trying a less regulated approach.

These are just a few examples. At the local, state, and federal levels, experiments are happening all of the time. Each candidate represents a point of view and a hypothesis about how the government should most efficiently help increase knowledge creation and thus the wealth and well-being of its citizenry. Imagine the United States and other democracies as churning masses of competing ideas which are being tested and validated, used, discarded as new ideas form, and then churned over, recycled, amended, and more.

And this all stems from our remarkable Constitution which is itself ever evolving and changing. The Constitution has 27 added amendments, of which 25 are functioning. The 2 non-functioning amendments are instructive and show the experimental and hypothesis-based nature of our governing system.

The 18th Amendment was based on the hypothesis that liquor and alcohol led to all manner of vice including alcoholism, domestic abuse, illness, child abuse, and more. President Herbert Hoover described Prohibition as “"a great social and economic experiment, noble in motive and far-reaching in purpose." In many ways, the experiment achieved its purpose. According to the National Institute of Health:

“Death rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism, alcoholic psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all declined steeply during the latter years of the 1910s, when both the cultural and the legal climate were increasingly inhospitable to drink, and in the early years after National Prohibition went into effect. They rose after that, but generally did not reach the peaks recorded during the period 1900 to 1915. After Repeal, when tax data permit better-founded consumption estimates than we have for the Prohibition Era, per capita annual consumption stood at 1.2 US gallons (4.5 liters), less than half the level of the pre-Prohibition period.”

Prohibition was successful in reducing the harmful effects of alcohol. But it came with unintended consequences. Illegal activity rose as bootleggers and speakeasies proliferated, women and youth embraced the illicit nature of drink, and government enforcement was required to expend resources to enforce drinking laws. Perhaps most significant was the economic toll as thousands of breweries and bars shuttered and cities and states lost substantial tax revenue.

There is no consensus on exactly why public opinion shifted and the 18th Amendment was repealed.It’s likely that a variety of factors came together to fuel the reversal: a counter-reaction to the stringent Prohibition rules, a desire to have a drink amidst the stress of the Great Depression, the need for additional tax revenue during economic hard times.

Michael Lerner, a historian and the author of Dry Manhattan - Prohibition in New York City writes:

“There is little doubt that Prohibition failed to achieve what it set out to do, and that its unintended consequences were far more far reaching than its few benefits. The ultimate lesson is two-fold. Watch out for solutions that end up worse than the problems they set out to solve, and remember that the Constitution is no place for experiments, noble or otherwise.”

But that’s a hundred percent wrong. The Constitution is great because it allows for the people to peacefully put forward a hypothesis and test it. From this “noble experiment” we have learned so much. 

Michael Lerner adds:

“Perhaps the most powerful legacy of National Prohibition is the widely held belief that it did not work. I agree with other historians who have argued that this belief is false: Prohibition did work in lowering per capita consumption. The lowered level of consumption during the quarter century following Repeal, together with the large minority of abstainers, suggests that Prohibition did socialize or maintain a significant portion of the population in temperate or abstemious habits. That is, it was partly successful as a public health innovation. Its political failure is attributable more to a changing context than to characteristics of the innovation itself.”

What does this tell us today about the legalization of marijuana in many places? How can we use the data from this experiment to inform future decisions? The point is that our Constitution allows these questions to be explored and for knowledge to be generated at a broad societal level. And importantly, it is society that hears the hypothesis, blesses the experiment, evaluates that experiment, and then decides on the outcome. 

More than Just Paper

It’s easy to think that a Constitution is a magic wand that will immediately set a country onto a path of prosperity. Most countries think so and that’s why all but five, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK  have such a document. But the data doesn’t show this to be the case. A study by Todd Eisenstadt, A. Carl LeVan and Tofigh Maboudi in the American Political Science review studied 138 countries that had adopted Constitutions between 1974 - 2011. Three years after those constitutions were adopted, 62 countries were more democratic while 70 others showed no improvement or were even less so. What did the authors find to be a critical factor in making a constitution successfully support democracy and an enlightened political system? Participation of various groups within each country in drafting and ratifying the document. In other words, a constitution that is shoved down people’s throats generally is not an effective governing document. The people must have a say in incorporating their ideas and dreams into the document. For this to happen, a country must be mature enough to handle the conflict between political foes and enemies, and for constituencies who might vehemently disagree to set aside these differences and compromise on a document for everyone. 

Constitutions are also not limited to democracies. North Korea, Russia, and China all have constitutions. And yet what they embody is very different from the U.S. Constitution. Consider the preamble to the North Korean constitution:

Preamble

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is the socialist motherland of Juche which has applied the idea and leadership of the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung.

The great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung is the founder of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the father of socialist Korea.

Comrade Kim Il Sung authored the immortal Juche idea and, by organizing and leading the anti-Japanese revolutionary struggle under its banner, created the glorious revolutionary traditions and achieved the historic cause of national restoration. On the basis of laying a solid foundation for the building of an independent and sovereign State in the political, economic, cultural and military fields, he founded the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Having put forward Juche-oriented revolutionary lines, Comrade Kim Il Sung wisely led various stages of social revolution and construction work, thus strengthening and developing the Republic into a socialist country centred on the masses, into a socialist State which is independent, self-sufficient and self-reliant in defense.

Comrade Kim Il Sung elucidated the fundamental principles of the building and activities of the State, established the best State and social system, the best mode of politics and system and methods of administering society, and laid solid foundations for the prosperity of the socialist motherland and for the inheritance and consummation of the revolutionary cause of Juche.

Regarding "The people are my God" as his maxim, Comrade Kim Il Sung always mixed with the people, devoted his whole life to them and turned the whole of society into a large family which is united in one mind by taking care of the people and leading them through his noble benevolent politics.

This goes on and on in a similar manner.

Think about how different this language is from what is in the U.S. Constitution. If you read the rest of the North Korean document, you will see there is no separation of powers, no specified mechanism to change leadership, no bill of rights or specification of rights. It is more of a political screed than a blueprint for successfully running a nation.

North Korea is an extreme example. The country’s leadership is cemented in place. Over the last ninety years, North Korea has had three supreme leaders, all of whom are directly related. The ruling class is small, insular, and static. How much experimentation is going on in North Korea? Very little to none. The country’s rulers are intent to spend their energy on military strength and maintaining their power. Even as the world gets richer, North Korea grows poorer. And the people have no say or way to change course or make their thoughts and ideas known. The North Korean ruling class couldn’t care less about what 95% of the country thinks.

The political system and political ideology is rigid with no tolerance for dissent or alternative opinions. Citizens are taught from birth to follow a strict ideology that requires total adoration of the supreme leader and no deviation from official government announcements and propaganda. Is anyone allowed to propose alternate ideas or philosophies on how to improve the country and the plight of the people? No. Is there any ability to test an idea that is anywhere outside the rigid guardrails of the ruling ideology? No. In a place like North Korea, it is impossible to have any significant political experimentation. If the United States is alive with competing ideas and philosophies, North Korea is as dead and inert as the emptiness of space. As we’ve seen, a culture of experimentation has led to the greatest creation of wealth in human history. So, what is North Korea’s long-term outlook? It has none. Only a focus on weapons keeps its rulers in power but over time even that will not be enough. South Korea, on the other hand, has become a vibrant, technologically advanced democracy which is increasingly embracing Ascendence. With every passing day, it pulls further and further ahead of its northern neighbor and it is just a matter of time before it is able to neutralize any threat that North Korea tries to launch against it. Time is not on the side of knowledge destroying or knowledge neutral cultures. 

Many believe that China will become the leading power in the world shortly. Its huge population, strong work ethic, and increasingly educated population would make it seem that way. Indeed, China’s knowledge creation ability has grown exponentially over the past thirty years. But it faces a big problem. Its political system, ruled by leaders who are enlightened versions of the North Koreans, is not knowledge creating. There is a mismatch. There is no real political discourse or discussion of new ideas and philosophies. The people do not have a say in which experiments will be attempted or in their success or failure.

The story of starvation is a stark example of the failure of authoritarian rule and actually begins with the sparrow. As part of China’s Great Leap Forward under Mao Zedung, the country embarked on a campaign to eradicate the bird “pests.” Experts believed sparrows consumed up to four pounds of grain per year. Sparrow nests were destroyed, the birds were shot, and citizens waved brooms and banged on tin pots to prevent sparrows from landing and to kill them by exhaustion. It is estimated that between 1958-1960 hundreds of millions of sparrows were exterminated. The problem is that sparrows not only consumed grain, but many of the pests that also consume grain. Without sparrows, locusts and other insect populations exploded and contributed to the famine in China that killed so many people.

In the end, China needed to import 300,000 sparrows from the Soviet Union to help rebuild the population. Its recent zero Covid policy is just the most recent example.

Any country can make a mistake. But in a country ruled by a narrow group of rulers, these mistakes happen more frequently, without debate, and often lead to much worse consequences. Eradicating an entire species is not to be taken lightly but without opposition or true debate, these decisions can be made capriciously and without regard to their true consequences.

China must eventually choose to have an Ascendant government and become a leading force in knowledge creation, or stick with its rigid political system and see the country’s potential squandered. It’s in the world’s interest that China chooses the former path.

Constitutions help codify the institutions and rules that a country uses to govern itself. But they must codify the right things. The United States Constitution is such an innovative document because it was the first to commit such ideas to paper, but even more importantly, it created a framework for leveraging the majority of the population in the creation, implementation, and testing of new ideas to improve how a country is run. And it created a system of checks and balances so that this system could not be easily overturned or overwhelmed by a tyrant. New ideas are tried, bad ideas are rejected, and good ones are recognized and institutionalized - until they are no longer considered good and are either reformed or repealed. No one person or group can gain control of the system and replace it with unyielding totalitarianism. Our system of government is itself Ascendant.